What's new

Trump Officials Alarmed China May Bid for Westinghouse Unit

onebyone

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,550
Reaction score
-6
Country
Thailand
Location
Thailand
Trump Officials Alarmed China May Bid for Westinghouse Unit
by Jennifer Jacobs, Saleha Mohsin and Jennifer A Dlouhy
5 เมษายน 2560 05:46 GMT+7 5 เมษายน 2560 13:11 GMT+7
  • White House worries bankruptcy may compromise nuclear secrets
  • Cabinet members have discussed U.S. response to Chinese buyer
China Becomes Biggest U.S. Oil Buyer
Why Zero Japanese Bankruptcies May Be a Problem
Full Show: What'd You Miss? (04/04)

Officials Said Searching for U.S. Buyer for Westinghouse

The Trump administration is so alarmed that Chinese investors may try to purchase Westinghouse Electric Co.’s nuclear business that U.S. officials are trying to find an American or allied buyer for the company instead, two people familiar with the matter said.

Cabinet members including Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have discussed preventing Westinghouse’s purchase by a Chinese-linked company, three U.S. officials said.

For years, Chinese entities have been interested in the nuclear reactor builder, and the company has been a repeated target of Chinese espionage. Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 29 and its parent company Toshiba Corp. is seeking a buyer for its money-losing reactor business. The Japanese company said it replaced Westinghouse Chairman Daniel Roderick with Mamoru Hatazawa. Roderick resigned all posts at the U.S. unit, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the details aren’t yet public.

Read More: Toshiba Board Approves Bankruptcy for Westinghouse: Nikkei

Trump administration officials and members of Congress are concerned the bankruptcy filing could allow a bid from an investment group with hidden Chinese backing, one of the officials said. All of the officials requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

President Donald Trump will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping for the first time at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Thursday and Friday. A second official said the Trump administration is preparing for Westinghouse’s bankruptcy to come up in the talks.


Counting Down to the Trump-Xi Jinping Summit


Pres. Trump to Host China's Xi in Mar-a-Lago

Among the chief concerns in the event of a Chinese purchase is the disclosure of nuclear technological secrets that could be used for either military or civilian purposes. The U.S. would almost certainly stop an open Chinese bid for majority ownership of Westinghouse’s nuclear business, a third official said. The government has legal authority to regulate corporate acquisitions involving sensitive national security technology.

The Japanese government would also oppose any effort to sell the Westinghouse business to a Chinese buyer, according to people familiar with the matter. Japanese officials have made that point clear to Toshiba executives, one of the people said.

Westinghouse spokeswoman Sarah Cassella declined by e-mail to comment late Tuesday.

Southern Co. Concerned

Perry, Mnuchin, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are involved in discussions about how the administration would address a sale of the business, the officials said.

Southern Co. CEO Thomas Fanning also has met with Perry and Tillerson to discuss Westinghouse’s fate, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The utility company has a stake in avoiding disruption of Westinghouse’s operations because the company is building two nuclear reactors for Southern subsidiary Georgia Power.

Administration officials so far have examined three potential courses to keep Westinghouse out of Chinese hands, said the person familiar with the discussions. The government might block a sale to a Chinese buyer; encourage an alternative bid from U.S. or friendly foreign investors; or the government might invest in the company directly in return for an equity stake, akin to the Obama administration bailout of U.S. automakers.

CFIUS Review

Any bid by Chinese investors would require approval by a panel known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviews foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies for national security risks. Mnuchin chairs the panel.

The committee, which includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Energy, Defense, State and Commerce departments, can impose changes to transactions or, in rare cases, recommend to the president that they be blocked. The panel has a maximum 75 days to complete its review.

China was the leading source of investments reviewed by CFIUS from 2012 to 2014, accounting for almost a fifth, according to Rhodium Group, a private research firm.

“By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed by CFIUS to the public. Accordingly, we cannot comment on specific transactions, including whether or not certain parties have filed notices for CFIUS review,” a Treasury spokesman said.

A top Japanese government official has told Perry his government is worried about Toshiba’s financial future if the conglomerate is unable to sell Westinghouse’s reactor business, a U.S. official said.

Chinese Deals

U.S.-based venture capital firms with substantial ties to China have generated concerns in Congress. Most recently, Republican Representative Robert Pittenger of North Carolina wrote to the Treasury Department to object to Canyon Bridge Capital Partners’ purchase of Lattice Semiconductor, a producer of U.S. military applications and technology. The venture capital firm “appears to be directly affiliated” with the Chinese government, Pittenger said in a December letter.

Barack Obama blocked two Chinese deals when he was president: one for a wind farm in Oregon and the other for the U.S. business of Germany’s Aixtron SE, a semiconductor supplier.

Westinghouse supplied the world’s first commercial pressurized water reactor more than half a century ago in Pennsylvania. There are currently more than 430 nuclear power stations globally, with about half based on Westinghouse technology.

Toshiba bought Westinghouse for $5.4 billion in 2006. The company foresaw rising demand for nuclear power in the U.S., U.K. and China. Instead, natural gas became cheaper and the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, further soured the public on nuclear energy. The Japanese conglomerate has already lost $6 billion on the purchase.

Five Chinese military officials were indicted in absentia in 2014 for allegedly stealing trade secrets from Westinghouse through computer hacks. A state-owned company, China General Nuclear Power Corp., was indicted in 2016 for conspiring to steal restricted nuclear technology from Westinghouse.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...alarmed-chinese-may-bid-for-westinghouse-unit
 
.
First MoneyGram and now this.

The US government is getting paranoid and screaming right and left.

OK, keep your declining and money losing companies until they enjoy a painful death. If this is how they keep US employment steady, US power elite is nuts.
 
.
First MoneyGram and now this.

The US government is getting paranoid and screaming right and left.

OK, keep your declining and money losing companies until they enjoy a painful death. If this is how they keep US employment steady, US power elite is nuts.
You're right, like Aixtron case this Westinghouse asset is on US soil but is not even American owned, it's change of ownership between foreign owners. Political interference in FDI is nothing new, MoneyGram is just the latest example:

Panic Arises As Chinese Company Plans To Acquire U.S. MoneyGram
By PYMNTS Posted on April 3, 2017
http://www.pymnts.com/news/partners...uire-u-s-moneygram-ant-financial-acquisition/


Chinese grab for U.S. money transfer giant sets off alarms
The purchase by Ant Financial, which is partially owned by the Chinese government, poses a test for the Treasury Department oversight body.
By Bryan Bender 04/01/17 07:11 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/china-money-transfer-treasury-ant-financial-moneygram-236773

China's strategic shift from FX Reserves (e.g. unloading T-bills) to pivoting on outbound FDI is a determined national strategy. From US perspective new capital injected into civilian economy should be a welcome move, moreover on top of money Chinese capital can also bring market, massive industrial supply chain, vocational skills and vast pool of technological patents. The deeply indebted US should drop the outdated cold war mindset and co-operate.
 
.
First MoneyGram and now this.

The US government is getting paranoid and screaming right and left.

OK, keep your declining and money losing companies until they enjoy a painful death. If this is how they keep US employment steady, US power elite is nuts.
And the USA keeps on complaining about the huge trade deficit with China when it consistently blocks many things that have the selling values from happening.

Seems like the USA only wants to sell the many crappy, inferior and intangible products such as the Hollywood craps, major label records, adult industries and many other decadent outputs [alias the modern era opium!] that the Chinese people have no interests to buy.

Why keep on crying foul if you have less useful things to offer? Why wonder if China buys less of your exports when you simply have less things of value to offer?

It reminds me of the historical dark age when the British Empire had less interesting products to offer the Chinese people and instead had to use its precious yet limited and depleted stock of silver in order to acquire the much wanted products from China back then, i.e. tea, silks, porcelains. At the end the British Empire turned to its bigger warships to force feed the Chinese with its OPIUM in exchange for the coveted products, thus the Opium War I and the Opium War II.
 
.
"...US don't want to give nuclear tech to China as simple as that, hard thing to understand"

Time and again that's just fine as China has been proving repeatedly but please stop complaining about the balance of trade then :D:P

"...U.S. policy that closes its doors to Chinese trade in strategic industries only serves to open doors for other global players like Europe. It certainly does not hurt China. And if China can’t buy what it needs — not from Europe, not from the United States, not from anyone — it simply develops what it needs from scratch."

We all have been witnessing such Chinese resilience in Tiangong Space Station; Supercomputer; BeiDou Satellite Navigation System and so on...

I posted earlier this info at the other thread under "Brussels View: Remembrance of Things Past" :enjoy:
 
.
Let me ask you Chinese Member a question, if Chinese Petroleum or Nuclear industry is up for sale, would you be selling it to the United States? There is a reason why all "Strategic Enterprises" are state own in China.

You are talking about an industry with Strategic Importance. Just because Japan bought it in 2006 does not mean it have no strategic importance in the US, by the way, Westinghouse was sold to Germany in 1998 and British in 1999, and finally to Japan in 2006.

Selling Westinghouse to the Chinese is probably the same degree as selling BAe US division or AUSTRAL US division to the Chinese.

Funny many people here don't consider nuclear tech as sensitive technology?
 
.
Us government is on the hook for $8.3 billion dollars, the $8.3 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees that were provided to help finance the reactors. Westinghouse Electric, hit by billions of dollars of cost overruns at four nuclear reactors under construction in the U.S. Southeast.

Costs for the projects have soared due to increased safety demands by U.S. regulators, and also due to significantly higher-than-anticipated costs for labor, equipment and components.

State regulators have approved costs of around $14 billion for each project, but Morgan Stanley has estimated the final bill of around $22 billion for the South Carolina project and around $19 billion for the Georgia plant.

Having said that, work is years behind meaning costs will rise even more, not sure why is this business even worth for any investor to buy since Toshiba plans to keep profitable reactor servicing business
 
.
First MoneyGram and now this.

The US government is getting paranoid and screaming right and left.

OK, keep your declining and money losing companies until they enjoy a painful death. If this is how they keep US employment steady, US power elite is nuts.

Well in interest of rationality, will China allow any country to purchase it's nuclear assets? Or other critical assets like telecom?

I don't think so.

You're right, like Aixtron case this Westinghouse asset is on US soil but is not even American owned, it's change of ownership between foreign owners. Political interference in FDI is nothing new, MoneyGram is just the latest example:

Panic Arises As Chinese Company Plans To Acquire U.S. MoneyGram
By PYMNTS Posted on April 3, 2017
http://www.pymnts.com/news/partners...uire-u-s-moneygram-ant-financial-acquisition/


Chinese grab for U.S. money transfer giant sets off alarms
The purchase by Ant Financial, which is partially owned by the Chinese government, poses a test for the Treasury Department oversight body.
By Bryan Bender 04/01/17 07:11 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/china-money-transfer-treasury-ant-financial-moneygram-236773

China's strategic shift from FX Reserves (e.g. unloading T-bills) to pivoting on outbound FDI is a determined national strategy. From US perspective new capital injected into civilian economy should be a welcome move, moreover on top of money Chinese capital can also bring market, massive industrial supply chain, vocational skills and vast pool of technological patents. The deeply indebted US should drop the outdated cold war mindset and co-operate.


Well there are some inaccuracies in your statement.

Firstly, Westinghouse is the premium nuclear civilian company, and despite Chinese advances still remain ahead in the nuclear game.

Second, foreign ownership doesn't do away with security clearances.

Third, the assets that China goes after are all due to their technological value.

Finally, I would say that US is not so indebted. All of its debt is in domestic currency, inflation is low, and US still is a good place to invest.
 
.
And the USA keeps on complaining about the huge trade deficit with China when it consistently blocks many things that have the selling values from happening.

Seems like the USA only wants to sell the many crappy, inferior and intangible products such as the Hollywood craps, major label records, adult industries and many other decadent outputs [alias the modern era opium!] that the Chinese people have no interests to buy.

Why keep on crying foul if you have less useful things to offer? Why wonder if China buys less of your exports when you simply have less things of value to offer?

It reminds me of the historical dark age when the British Empire had less interesting products to offer the Chinese people and instead had to use its precious yet limited and depleted stock of silver in order to acquire the much wanted products from China back then, i.e. tea, silks, porcelains. At the end the British Empire turned to its bigger warships to force feed the Chinese with its OPIUM in exchange for the coveted products, thus the Opium War I and the Opium War II.

Nice historical analogy. Rest assured, if we are weak, they won't shy from forcing another Opium War on us.

And they cry about trade deficit while blocking flow of money from China into US declining or incompetent industries.

This shows insecurity, at least, and paranoia, at the latest. Why would MoneyGram be considered strategic?

Besides, it was the US championing free trade and competition when it's companies had comparative advantages.

In this or that way, US zombie industries will either go under, or be gobbled up.
 
.
Nice historical analogy. Rest assured, if we are week, they won't shy from forcing another Opium War on us.

And they cry about trade deficit while blocking flow of money from China into US declining or incompetent industries.

This shows insecurity , at least, and paranoia, at the latest. Why would MoneyGram be considered strategic?

Besides, it was the US championing free trade and competition when it's companies had comparative advantages.

In this or that way, US zombie industries will either go under, or be gobbled up.

Moneygram isn't strategic.

You must understand internal US politics also.

US politicians can be "lobbied" for specific policy positions. I can see the hand of US companies behind the whole Money gram issue.

But, Westinghouse is BY ANY DEFINITION, strategic. It is a country's whole civilian nuke industry for God's sake, plus a whole host of nuclear technology, and capability.

Also, westinghouse is NOT incompetent, or declining. The issue here is that nuclear power in most countries has become a taboo, which has led to significant cost overruns, and regulatory delays. Hence, it sometimes become non-profitable to have such firms. This is market playing its hand.

On the other hand, Chinese companies are all state-owned, which get government subsidies, AND, extremely cheap loans (without any collateral, and risk, profit evaluation) from Chinese banks.
 
.
Well in interest of rationality, will China allow any country to purchase it's nuclear assets? Or other critical assets like telecom?
I don't think so.
China nationalizes those industries from day one, no private sector involvement domestic or foreign, such policy is always persistant. US privatizes those industries from day one, it could be owned by US citizens, or foreigners. Foreigners can be British, Singaporean, Japanese or Emerati, why not Chinese?
Firstly, Westinghouse is the premium nuclear civilian company, and despite Chinese advances still remain ahead in the nuclear game.

Second, foreign ownership doesn't do away with security clearances.

Third, the assets that China goes after are all due to their technological value.

Finally, I would say that US is not so indebted. All of its debt is in domestic currency, inflation is low, and US still is a good place to inves
Firstly, China's own third gen tech Hualong One is already being constructed smoothly in several domestic sites, already progressing in several overseas markets, say it's already under GDA stage in UK. Let alone experimental/next gen techs like HTGR and fusion. How would you describe a "tech" that bankrupts its company, "premium"?

Secondly, it's always foreign owned till nowadays, so why is security clearances is an issue now, not before?

Thirdly, same non-sense, see 1st paragraph. There are many motives in M&A, from simple financial return to like horizontally buyout competition, vertically integrate supply chain, dictate market, control critical infrastructure.

Finally, external liabilities denominated in home currency doesn't change its nature, it still what it literally says, liabilities. Net int'l investment position tanked another $829 billion last year to negative $8.1097 trillion by 2016 end, world's largest debtor nation by far, so that's "not so indebted"? As % of GDP though has not sunk to PIIGS level yet, it's already as indebted as Eastern Europe, worse than Mexico, Venezuela or Brazil, "not so indebted"?
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm
 
.
China nationalizes those industries from day one, no private sector involvement domestic or foreign, it's not like targeting anyone. US privatizes those industries from day one, it could be owned by US citizens, or foreigners. Foreigners can be British, Singaporean, Japanese or Emerati, why not Chinese?

Private doesn't mean that it is not strategic. In fact there are many private companies, or listed companies in China that too are strategic. China Mobile, China Unicom etc. are listed companies. Huawei is also private. So is DJI.

Also, not all foreigners are equal. Chinese are an adversary, while the rest are allies.

Firstly, China's own nuclear reactor tech Hualong One is being constructed smoothly in several domestic sites, also progressing in several overseas markets, say it's under GDA stage in UK. How would you describe a "tech" that bankrupts its company, "premium"?

Secondly, it's always foreign owned till nowadays, so why is security clearances is an issue now, not before?

Thirdly, utter non-sense, see 1st paragraph. There are many motives in M&A, from simple financial return to like horizontally buyout competition, vertically integrate supply chain, dictate market.

Finally, liabilities denominated in home currency doesn't change its nature, it still what it literally says, liabilities. On "not so indebted", read https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

  1. Almost all Chinese nuclear technology is based on Westinghouse, or Areva designs. China sure is gaining increasing competence in designing its own nuclear plants, but isn't there yet.
    And nuclear design capabilities are dual use. A good civilian design sector implies capability to design and build military reactors. China hasn't been there yet in either of those.
  2. Foreign owned by allies. A key difference is the word, allies.
  3. Why buy westinghouse a company with billions of dollars of debt if financial returns was the goal? Westinghouse possesses decades of experience in nuclear design, and still holds valuable IP for various reactors.
  4. I am glad that you accepted that. That liabilites in domestic currency don't change the fact that it is a liability.
    Hence, I hope now you will recognize the fact and pay heed to it, that China is in HUGE DOMESTIC DEBT. China's corporates, specially the SOEs, are upto the brim with debt borrowed from State Banks.
    But for the US, it is different because, US is the country which has HUGE innate attraction. If given an option to the Chinese wealthy to relocate to US, at least half will do so. US FDI is often a means to gain US citizenship, for the person investing, or for their family.
    The sad fact remains that people want to leave China, not enter it. And people want to enter US, not leave it.
 
.
Also, not all foreigners are equal. Chinese are an adversary, while the rest are allies.
Foreign owned by allies. A key difference is the word, allies.
It's the only point, no other rationale apply, like I said it's simply cold war mindset.
Almost all Chinese nuclear technology is based on Westinghouse, or Areva designs. China sure is gaining increasing competence in designing its own nuclear plants, but isn't there yet. And nuclear design capabilities are dual use. A good civilian design sector implies capability to design and build military reactors. China hasn't been there yet in either of those.
That's why I said it's pure non-sense. There are differ tech streams in reactor, say LWR or PWR or others. After Toshiba (itself has been in LWR or BWR for decades, just not PWR) acquired Westinghouse in 2006 then they began to share PWR design experience on AP1000 with CGN, which then develops Hualong One (jointly with CNNC) with entirely new and independent IP. With late mover advantage, Hualong One if anything can only avoid bugs found in AP1000, Westinghouse's trouble in Georgia and SC are self-explanatory. Who will buy an older version "tech", a proven failure? Especially when one already has prior access to this older version "tech" and has developed a newer version with full IP ownership? But you are entitled to your opinion that a "tech" that bankrupts its owner is "premium".
I am glad that you accepted that. That liabilites in domestic currency don't change the fact that it is a liability.
Hence, I hope now you will recognize the fact and pay heed to it, that China is in HUGE DOMESTIC DEBT. China's corporates, specially the SOEs, are upto the brim with debt borrowed from State Banks.
But for the US, it is different because, US is the country which has HUGE innate attraction. If given an option to the Chinese wealthy to relocate to US, at least half will do so. US FDI is often a means to gain US citizenship, for the person investing, or for their family.
When we talk about US international indebtedness, suddenly you mention domestic credit market, an entirely different topic? Alright then, try search for Domestic Credit To Private Sector, China 153.3%, US 188.8%, or Domestic Credit Provided By Financial Sector, China 194.4%, US 236.5%, which is bigger "problem"? When you mention corporate debt being heavy, do you know that exactly means household is light, so why no mention of "huge" household debt problem in other markets that may bankrupt families directly?
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FS.AST.DOMS.GD.ZS?year_high_desc=true
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FS.AST.PRVT.GD.ZS?year_high_desc=true
 
. .
Cold war mentality. This is just excuses to distract Americans. US cannot exist without an enemy, China and Russia is just a convenient bogeyman.

I would say MoneyGram would be better acquired than Westinghouse. If it almost bankrupted Toshiba, there must be something seriously wrong.

Letting them go under and be a public burden is a better strategy.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom